David,
Agree. When we create new class in future, we will adopt some Xerces specific
naming convention.
But for QName, is it possible for Xalan to work around this conflict this
time? Thanks a lot!
Tinny
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Xerces has defined a class called QName. Xalan-C++ has a class of the same
> name and there is now a conflict with building Xalan using the latest
> Xerces.
>
> Obviously, without namespaces, we're going to continue to have collisions
> like this, if we don't have a policy for naming such classes.
>
> I mentioned in the email about the conflict with StringTokenizer that we
> have taken to using "Xalan" as a prefix for such classes. I urge the
> Xerces developer to consider doing something like this as well. The
> overhead of fixing Xalan to work around this conflict is not insignificant,
> and I'd like to avoid it in the future. This will also help
> interoperability with other XML application as well.
>
> Dave
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
